Talk:Bergen Street station (IND Culver Line)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 10:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, and leaving the lead until the end. Can I suggest you record any issues that you have addressed with comments and/or the {{Done}} template. I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the text more difficult to read at a later date, and this review is an important record of the GA process.

The lead should introduce and summarise the main points of an article, and will need a bit of work to fulfill this task. Can I suggest that you think about expanding it while I press on with the review. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Construction was slightly stalled due to supply delays, and to complete the ventilation system for the Culver tunnel from Jay Street. This doesn't quite read right. Was the ventilation system for the Culver tunnel not part of the construction? Unless I have misunderstood the meaning, suggest "... and to allow the ventilation system for the Culver tunnel from Jay Street to be completed."

Done

Having checked ref 7, there were supply delays for parts of the ventilation system. Suggest rewording occordingly.

Done

Upon opening, only the primary entrances ... were open. Suggest "were in use" or "were available".

Done

of which most of came from the Bergen and Smith Street Line Trolleys. Remove spare "of", so "of which most came..."

Done

The lower-level express platforms only operated between 1968 and 1976. Were they built as part of the 1933 construction, or subsequently? If the former, is there any reason why they weren't used until 1968?

Done

Around the 1990s, the station was modernized... This paragraph contains too many "station"s for easy reading. Suggest "after water shorted out old wiring." and "A 1930s-era relay room, which controlled..."

Done

Station layout[edit]

As a result of the station's proximity to ground level, it is one of only three as-built express stations[a] in the system that do not allow free transfers between directions. I think this needs a bit more description to explain what is meant.

Done–I think that I have clarified it, but I am not sure if it is clear enough.

Yes, that is exactly the sort of detail that was required. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exits

go up to either eastern corners of Bergen and Smith Streets... Either is singular, corners is plural. Does this mean both eastern corners? Same issue with the western corners, following.

Done

Tracks and platforms

I have just got to the lower level details. How were they opened in 1933, but not used until 1968?

Express service did not start.

(including original IND signs reading "BERGN" on support pillars, and modern Exit signs); all of which are not in usable condition. Is the spelling of Bergn right here? The bracket needs to be after pillars, and the final clause is not sufficiently separate to follow a semicolon. Suggest "(including original IND signs reading "BERGN" on support pillars), and modern Exit signs, none of which are in usable condition."

Done–The full name could not fit on the signs.

Design and artwork

The new tile job replaced the original small "BERGEN" tiles, and tiled over advertisement panels. Does not read well, particularly "job". Suggest "New tiles replaced the original small "BERGEN" tiles, and covered existing advertisement panels." or somesuch.

Done

Details of the lower level seem to gradually reveal themselves as you read on, and I think a little more explanation when it is first mentioned would make for a much better article. Apart from that, most of the issues are fairly trivial to fix, I think.

Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

The references generally check out, and support the text as written. There are a few that need some attention.

Ref 1 NYC Subway Wireless – Active Stations. I cannot find Bergen Street under Line F or G.

It is on the map on the page. http://transitwirelesswifi.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/TWWiFi-map-final-1.19.17.pdf Done

Ref 5 Feasibility and Analysis of F Express Service in Brooklyn. This is a 37-page document, but is used 15 times, so presumably there are a number of different pages cited. One solution would be to put the ref in a bibliography, and then use the {sfn |...|p=??} template to specify different pages within it for each occurrence.

Done

Ref 6 The Routes Not Taken... This has 323 pages, and needs a p=??.

Done

Ref 13 Review of F Line Operations, Ridership, and Infrastructure. This is a 25-page document, that is used 9 times. Same issue as Ref 5.

Done

Ref 20 Review of the G Line. This is a 29-page document and needs a p=??.

Done

Ref 22 Review of the G Line: Appendices. This is a 26-page document and needs a p=??.

Done

Ref 23 F Train Express Service Might be Coming Back to Brooklyn. I get a "connection was reset" error. This may go away (?) Is it a Reliable source?

Done I didn't add this one to the article so I have no clue if it was reliable. I just removed it.

Lead[edit]

Please see comment in introduction to review. It needs to be expanded a little.

Done

The image in the infobox needs a caption.

Done

The formal bit[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See comments above
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
See comments above
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I have now concluded the review. There is a little bit of work on the text, and some re-organisation for flow. The refs look slightly more problematical, because of the number of times that some of the multipage documents are used. If you need any more help with how to resolve these, do let me know. I shall not put the article on hold unless there is no movement. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this article up. I was hoping you would. I will start today.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I have adequately dealt with all of the issues that you brought up. Thanks again.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all the issues raised have been dealt with. I hope you agree that the article is in better shape. I am still intrigued by the lower level. Were the lower tracks used from time to time between 1933 and 1968, but not the platforms? Anyway, I am pleased to say that I am awarding the article GA status. Congratulations on a job well done. I may see you again soon, since I think you have two more articles in the GA queue at positions 3 and 4. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]